Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Two cases from two different federal appellate courts have reached similiar conclusions with respect to discipline of students for online, off-school activity. Though neither case comes from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the court that hears federal appeals from Ohio, both cases are instructive as to how a similiar situation may be dealt with within the public schools of the state.

The first case came out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and originated in West Virginia. In that case, a student had created a fictious MySpace profile from home which was "largely dedicated to ridiculing a fellow student." The student invited approximately100 people on her MySpace "friends" list to join the group. MySpace discussion groups allow registered users to post and respond to text, comments, and photographs in an interactivefashion. Approximately two dozen High School students responded and ultimately joined the group, posting comments and pictures directed towards a particular student. The first student to join the group did so from a school computer during an after hours class.

The student who had been ridiculed's parents contacted the school district within a few hours and the site was changed.

School district officials believed that there was a sufficient nexus with the school to impose punishment. School administrators concluded that the student had createda "hate website," in violation of the school policy against "harassment, bullying, and intimidation." For punishment, they suspended the student from school for and issued hera "social suspension," which prevented her from attending school events in which she was not a direct participant.

The suspended student ultimately sued the school district for a purported violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that they were authorized to punishthe student because her webpage was "created for the purpose of inviting others to indulge in disruptive and hateful conduct," which caused an "in-school disruption."

In affirming the decision of the trial court, the appeals court concluded that the student had used the Internet to orchestrate a targeted attack on a classmate and did so in a manner that was sufficiently connected to the school environment as to implicate the School District’s recognized authority to discipline speech which "materially and substantially interfere[es] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and collid[es] with the rights of others." Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. CommunitySch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969).

The case caption is Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools.

In another case, from the Eighth District Court of Appeals, in a case that originated in Missouri, upheld the right of a school district to punish a student who had made death threats regarding other students via instant messenger. The threats were made by one student to his friend while both students were on their home computers. The student named particular students, and groups of students, and had said that he had wanted the school to be known for something.

Alarmed, the student receiving the instant messages contacted an adult, who contacted the principal. The student was then placed into juvenile detention. Subsequently, the school principal received a number of phone calls from concerned parents. Security was required to be increased. At that point, the district made the decision to suspend the student who had made the threats because it had been disruptive to the school environment.

The student subsequently returned to the school and graduated ahead of his class.

Nonetheless, his parents instituted a lawsuit, which found its way into federal court. With respect to the alleged violation of the student's First Amendment rights, the district court found that the court held that the student's speech had been an unprotected true threat andalternatively that the District could properly discipline him for his speech because ofits disruptive impact on the school environment. The appeals court affirmed the decision.

The case is D.J.M v. Hannibal Public School District #60.

The bottom line with both of these cases is that the more of a nexus the speech has to the school, along with a reasonable showing of disruption to the school community, the more likely the courts will be in upholding student discipline involving cyberspeech.

About Me

Larry S. Hayman is a Columbus, Ohio Education Attorney. He attended Ohio University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, earning the highest grade point average in the Political Science Department.
He received his Juris Doctor, cum laude, from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. In law school, he served as an Editor on the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, received a CALI Award for Excellence for obtaining a perfect score in his legal seminar, and graduated in the top 10% of his class.
Larry has significant litigation experience in a wide variety of forums. He has tried matters in state and federal court, presented cases on appeal, and represented clients in numerous adminstrative proceedings before, among others, the Ohio Department of Education. His experience includes advising clients in Ohio education law and litigating matters involving public schools, charter schools, as well as representing students at the higher education level.
Additionally, Mr. Hayman has presented statewide legal seminars to school administrators and authored published articles in the area of school law.

Disclaimer

Legal Notice

The materials on this blog and Web site are for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice and should not be construed as soliciting legal business or as an offer to represent you. Neither your use of this Web site nor your use of any information on this Web site creates an attorney-client relationship. Additionally, your contact of our firm by electronic means, including through email and through this Web site, does not constitute an attorney-client relationship and that information should not be considered confidential. The law is constantly changing and the information on this Web site may not be complete or correct depending on the date of the information and the facts of your particular situation. The resolution of each legal problem depends on the facts involved and the law of the applicable jurisdictions. Because of these differences, you should not act or rely on any information on this Web site and instead should seek the advice of a attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. The materials contained on this Web site may be considered advertising in your state. Hayman Law, LLC does not intend to represent anyone where this site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Hayman Law, LLC does not intend to practice law in any jurisdiction in which it is not authorized to do so. Except for linked sites, this Web site is controlled by Larry S. Hayman at his offices in Columbus, Ohio. It can be accessed from all 50 states, as well as from other countries around the world. Each of these jurisdictions has laws and regulations that may differ from those of Ohio. Hayman Law, LLC and Larry S. Hayman assume no liability for your use or interpretation of information contained on this Web site. The information on this Web site is provided "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. You may contact Larry Hayman by e-mail. However, if you communicate with the firm in connection with a matter for which the firm does not already represent you, you should not send confidential or sensitive information via e-mail because your communication will not be treated as privileged or confidential. This Web site may contain links to other resources on the Internet. Those links are provided solely as aids to assist you in locating other Internet resources that may be of interest. They are not intended to state or imply that Hayman Law, LLC or Larry S. Hayman endorses, approves, sponsors or is affiliated or associated with those linked sites. To the extent the Bar rules in your jurisdiction requires designation of a principal office and/or a single attorney responsible for this Web site, Larry S. Hayman designates his office at 3010 Hayden Road, Columbus, Ohio 43235 as its principal office and designates himself as responsible for this Web site.